robotwarsfandomcom-20200215-history
Category talk:Robots with astronomical names
Gravity This category deserves to exist, so good job Combatwombat, but there's one robot that's troubling me as to whether or not it should be added; Gravity. Wikipedia makes some mentions of astronomy on their gravity article, though it being mostly present on Earth, rather than space, is holding me back. Gravity is definitely an aspect of physics, which astronomy falls under, but I don't know whether they can be linked. [[User:ToastUltimatum|'Toast']][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'Ultimatum']] 18:49, November 2, 2016 (UTC) :Thanks, appreciated. Personally, as a physicist myself, Gravity shouldn't. It's a part of physics- it's one of the fundamental forces- but not exclusively astronomical in the way that a Pulsar, a Black Hole and a Supernova is. If it was a part of the page, I'd argue that Shockwave and Storm2 could be because some astronomical phenomena use similar terminology/ideas. I guess it's all down to the intention of the team. :Personally I'd veto Vortex Inducer as well- vortices are primarily part of the field of fluid dynamics, and whilst certain space phenomena do exist (the Time Vortex from Doctor Who, for example), I'd suggest that's not the primary definition. Unless there's an explicit link, maybe not include it. Combatwombat555 (talk) 18:58, November 2, 2016 (UTC) ::There's more Gravity in the Sun than Earth. It's a tough one this. Gravity is a Fundamental Force that allows Stars, Planets, Asteroids, Comets, Moons and other things like Satellites and Space Probes to exist and operate. That said, it's a force that just happens to make Astronomical bodies work. I don't think it's worth having Gravity here personally, or something like Atomic could also have a reason to be added. After all, Atoms make up Astronomical bodies. Vortex Inducer definitely isn't for this category either. Jimlaad43(talk) 19:07, November 2, 2016 (UTC) :::My rule of thumb would be if it's something the team made explicit reference to or if it's something that instantly makes you think 'space' above all else, include it. Otherwise, leave it. If it's just fairly uniform physics, like gravity or atomic forces/interactions, then I don't feel it's astronomical enough. Willing to be overruled though. Combatwombat555 (talk) 19:14, November 2, 2016 (UTC) ::::To me, Gravity seems much more relevant to physics than space, and pretty apt considering how potent its flipper is. Could we perhaps consider making categories for robots with names taken from physics/science/geological phenomena? VulcansHowl (talk) 19:18, November 2, 2016 (UTC) :::::I think a specific physics category would have too much overlap with this one. Remove Vortex Inducer if necessary, you all clearly have more knowledge on physics than me. I do love a good time travel theory, though. I'd also like to discuss Infinity (Dutch), as the robot was clearly space-themed with its paintjob, but then it poses the question of "is the other Infinity astronomic then?" [[User:ToastUltimatum|'Toast']][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'Ultimatum']] 19:33, November 2, 2016 (UTC) ::::::Other than the inevitable Buzz Lightyear references from JP's commentary, I think it's a stretch to say that the UK Infinity had an explicit space theme. In saying that, however, I've had a quick browse on Wikipedia, and it turns out that 'infinity' does have some relevance to cosmology, specifically with regards to theories that the universe may potentially be 'infinite' in size. Whether or not this was the naming inspiration for either Infinity remains to be seen, though the paintjob on the Dutch Infinity rather seems to suggest so. VulcansHowl (talk) 19:52, November 2, 2016 (UTC) :But like Gravity, infinity is more of an umbrella term that can go everywhere. It's a number, like 101, 259 and √3 and wouldn't go here just for the naming alone. Dutch Infinity has a case, with the paintjob being space themed. If there is anything about the team saying things like "Related to the infinite abyss of space" for it, I think it would count. But as the category is for their names, without something specific from the team, it dosn't make sense to add it to this category. Jimlaad43(talk) 20:49, November 2, 2016 (UTC) :I'd say that where a robots name doesn't give an answer look to the intention. Infinity is borderline but they've expressed intention. Then again, if you include one you have to include another...and robots like Lightning showed that there was a deliberate space theme despite not being space related name...in conclusion I have helped very little. Toon Ganondorf (t ''' 20:51, November 2, 2016 (UTC) ::No, that does help. The category is Robots with astronomical '''names. Where it was intended, like Infinity (Dutch), it does have more of a claim than Lightning, which was themed about Aliens, but not named for something astronomical. Using that logic, maybe Infinity (Dutch) does deserve to be here. Jimlaad43(talk) 21:22, November 2, 2016 (UTC) :::Initially I was against Infinity (both) on the grounds that infinity is first and foremost a mathematical concept, rather than anything specifically to do with space, but given how the Dutch Infinity was more space-themed I'm happier with that. I would veto Infinity (UK) though. Lightning, there was a space theme but the name is definitely not astronomical, so no. Another I'm quite borderline on is Neutron (the renamed Tanto): neutrons of themselves fall under the bounds of physics rather than astronomy, however neutron stars (extremely dense stars- one teaspoon of neutron star material weighs 10 million tons) are a thing and the team name Nebula very definitely leans towards astronomy... Guess we'll wait to see if Neutron qualifies before we make that call though. Combatwombat555 (talk) 23:09, November 2, 2016 (UTC) Film references If we have Xenomorph, do we have Vader? I've never watched a Star Wars film so I don't know how direct the link to astrology is. [[User:ToastUltimatum|'Toast']][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'Ultimatum']] 12:26, November 3, 2016 (UTC) :Since the category description also allows for fictitious entities, I don't see why not. I'm not a die-hard Star Wars fan, either, but I do know for certain that spacecraft and space travel play important parts in the films and the franchise around them. In that case, could we also add IG-88 in there as well while we're at it? VulcansHowl (talk) 12:58, November 3, 2016 (UTC) ::Well, it's not linked to astrology, that much I can say xD. No, if we've got Xenomorph (which I don't think should be there anyway) we should have Vader and IG-88. But, I don't think either should be there. They're film references based in space, so belong as film references. Pulsar is an example where it directly references the spinning of a Pulsar, while Xenomorph was designed to look like the Xenomoprh from the movies. Rather than adding Vader, I think we should remove the Xeno's. Jimlaad43(talk) 12:59, November 3, 2016 (UTC) :::The Xenomorphs, Vader and IG-88 are all examples of popular culture relating to astronomy, I feel like they belong. Similar idea to Major Tom, really. Plus, if 'Alien' and all variations on that are acceptable, I feel specific examples, although fictional, should be. Combatwombat555 (talk) 14:15, November 3, 2016 (UTC) ::::We could make it "sci-fi and astonomical"? Combatworm I think has the issue clear. Toon Ganondorf (t ' 19:46, November 3, 2016 (UTC) :::::I think sci-fi overlaps too much with the TV/Film category. I only wrote "fiction" into the description because we can't prove alien life exists, and because Xenomorph was already there. This feels more of a case where we should step back, not forwards. [[User:ToastUltimatum|'Toast]][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'Ultimatum']] 21:37, November 3, 2016 (UTC) Given we have the "Robots with names from film and television" category, which includes Vader, IG88 and Xenomorph, I think they should be removed from this category Drop Zone mk2 (talk) 22:34, November 3, 2016 (UTC) 'Combatworm', thanks, not sure that's a name I'll be adopting. :p It's true that there's some overlap between categories, but I don't feel that's a problem, both categories are relevant. It's like Arnold A. Terminegger belongs in both names from television/film and robots named after real people, it's not a mutually exclusive thing, and the same is true here. Combatwombat555 (talk) 23:03, November 3, 2016 (UTC)